Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-08-30

propounded certain questions to Leland STAN
ford, President of the Central Pacific Railroad
Company, which he, under the advice of coun-
upon summoned before the United States Circuit
Court on an order TO show cause why he should
not be compelled 10 answer. The matter was
eiaborately argued last Monday before Justice
Field of the Supreme Court of the United States,
Circuit Judge Sawyer and District Judges Hofi-
man and Sabin.
At II o'clock this morning Justice Field and
Judge Sawyer rendered opinions in the matter.
In the Courtroom were Hall McAllister, T. 1.
Bergin and L. D. McKisick, who represented the
railroad; United States Attorney Carey, who
appeared for the Commission, and John F. Swift,
w. w. Morrow, w. H. L. Barnes, Milton Andres,
A. l.. Rhodes, George Flournoy and 8. G. Hill
born. Sitting beside Justice Field were Judges
Sawyer and Sabin.
Justice Fields Opinion.
Mr., Justice Field, after stating the case at
length, delivered the opinion of the Court, as
follows:
The motion for peremptory order upon the
witness to answer the interrogatories pro-
pounded by the Railway Commission has been
fully argued, and everything which could be
said in its favor has been ably presented by the
United States Attorney either in oral or printed
arguments. In resisting the motion counsel OF
the respondent have not confined themselves to
discussion of the propriety and necessities OF
the lnterrogatories, and the sufieieney of the
answers given by him. but they have assaile(i
the validity of the Act creating the Commission
so far as 1t authorizes an examination into the
private affairs of the Directors officers and en-.
plOyes of the Central Pacific Railroad Company
and confers the right to invoke the power OF the
Federal Courts in aid of the general inyestiga-
ton directed.
Impressed with the gravity of the questions
them lta nSil
Grafton in our power.
The Pacific Railway Commission created
under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1887, is
not a judicial body; it possesses no judicial
powers; it can determine no right to the Govern.
ment or of the companies whose affairs it inyes-
tigates Those rights Will remain the subject OF
Judicial inquiry and determination as fully as
though the Commission had never been created
and in such inquiry its report to the President OF
its nation will not be even admissible as eyi-
dence of any of the matters investigated. Il is
mere Board OF inquiry, directed TO obtain in
formation upon certain matters and report the
result of its investigation to the President who
is to lay the same before Congress. In the pro-
gress of its investigations and in furtherance ol
them 1t is in terms authorized to invoke the aid
of the Courts ofthe United States in recurring the
attendance and testimony of the witnesses and
the production OF books, papers and documents
And the Act provides that the Circuit or Dis
trict Court of the United States within the luris
dict on of which the inquiry of the Commission
is had, in case OF contumacy or refusal of any
order requiring such person to appear before the
Commissioners and produce books and papers
and give evidence touching the matters in
question.
THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
Of all the rights of the citizen few are OF
greater importance or more essential to his peace
and happiness than the right of personal secur.
1ty, and that involves not merely protection OF
his person from assault, but exemption of his
private affairs. books and papers from the in-
spection and scrutiny of others. Without the
enjoyment of this right all other rights would
lose halt their value. The law provides for the
compulsory production, in theIrogress of Judi.
cial proceedings or by direct siiit for that pur
pose, of such documents as affect the interest.oi
others, and also in certain cases for the seizure
of eliminating papers necessary for the prosecu
tion of offenders against public Justice, and only
in one of these ways can they be obtained and
their contents made known age inst the Will Of
the owners.
In the recent case of BOYD ,fs The United
States 1l6 U. S. 6l6), the Suppme Court held
that a provision of a law of Congress which au
thor1zed Court of the United States in revenue
require the defendant or claima II to produce in
Court his private books, invoices, and papers or
that the allegations of the attorney respectine
them should be taken as eonfes led, was uncon
stltutlonal and void us applied o suits for pen
alties or to establish forteitur, of the party's
goods. The Court speaking bys ustice Bradley
said: ANY compulsory discovery by extortine
the party's oath. or compelling the production
OF crime or to forfeit his properly is contrary &c
the principles of a free government. 1t is ah-
horrent to the instincts of an Emslishman; it is
abhorrent to the instincts of All American. II
may suit the purpose of a despoti power, but il
cannot abide the pure atmosIIb ere of political
liberty and personal freedom" The Language
thus used had reference, it is true TO the com.
pulsory production OF papers asa foundation fol
criminal proceedings, but it is applicable to any
such production of the private bCoks and paners
OF party otherwise than in the course Of Judi.
f0rEnfVg
pose. 1t is the forcible intrusion into aud com.
pulsory exposure of ones private affairs and no.
pers, without judicial process, or in the course
OF Judicial proceedings which is contrary to the
principles OF free government, and is abhor-
rent to the instincts of EnglishInen and Amer
leans,
NO POWER TO INQUIRE INTO PRIVATE AFFAIRS
In Kilbourn VS.. Thompson 113 U. s., 1861 we
have decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, that neither house of Congress
had the power TO make inquiries into the pri-
ya.e affairs of the citizen that is to compel ey.
posure of such affairs That case was this: The
firm of jay Cooke Il Co. were debtors of the United
States, and 1t was alleged that they were inter
ested in a real estate pool'' in the city oil
Washington, and that the trustees oftheir estate
and effects had made settlement of their inter
ests with the associates of the firm to the disad
vantage and loss of numerous creditors includ-
ing the Government of the United States Ihe
House of Representatives by q resolution recit-
ing these tacts, authorized the Speaker to ap-
point Il committee OF nYe to INQUIRE into the
matter and history of said real estate pool -
and the character of the settlement, with the
amount OF the property involved in which jaw
Cooke d Co. were interested, and the amount
power to send for persons and papers, and report
to the House. The committee was an
pointed and organized, and proceeded to
make the inquiry directed. subpoena
was issued to one kilbourn, commanding him
to appear before the committee to testify and be
examined touching the matters to be inquired
into, and to bring with him certain designated
records, papers and maps relating to the in
quiry. Kilbourn appeared before the Committee
and was asked to state the names of the five
members OF the real estate pool and where each
resided, and he refused TO answer the question
or 10 produce the books which had been re-
quired. The committee reported the matter to
the House, and it ordered the Speaker to issue
his warrant directed to the Sergeant at Arms to
arrest kllbourn and bring him before the bar of
the House to answer why he should not be pun
ished for contempt. On being brought before
the House, Kilbourn persisted in his refusal To
answer the question and to produce the books
and papers required. He was thereupon held
TO be in contempt and committed TO the custody
of the Sergeant-at-Arms until he should signify
his Willingness to appear before the committee
and answer the question and obey the subpoena
duces tecHnl; and it was ordered that In the
meantime the Sergeant-at-Arms should cause
him to be eontinei in the common jail
OF the District of Columbia. He was
accordingly confined in that Jail for
forty-tive days, when he was released on habeas
corpus by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Count
OF the district OF Columbia. Upon his release.
he sued the Speaker of the House, the members
OF the committee. and the Sergeaut-at-A Arms for
his forclble arrest and confinement The de-
fendant pleaded the facts rected, to which pleas
the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was over
ruled and judgment ordered for the defendants
On writ of error to the Supreme Court the judg-
ment was affirmed as TO all the defendants ex-
cept the SeIgeant-at-Arms. They being mem
bers of the House were he'd to be projected
from prosecution for their action. But as 10
Thompson the judgment was reversed, and the
case reInanded for further proceedings. In the
Supreme Court the case received great consider
alton, and it was held that the subjectmatter of
the investigation was judicial and not legis-
lative, and that there was no power in CONGRESS
or in either House, on the allegation that an in.
solvent debtor of the United States was inter
ested in private business partnership, to in
vestigate the affairs of that partnership, and.
consequently, no authority to compel witnes s.
to te tify on the subject.
~ The House of Representatives" said the
Court, has the sole right TO impeaeh officers OF
the Government, and the Serate to try them.
Were the question of such impeachment before
either body acting in its appropriate sphere on
that subject. we see no reason to doubt the right
TO compel the attendance Of witnesses and their
answer to proper questions in the same manner
and by the use of the same means that Courts Of
justice can in like cases Whether the power Of
punishment in either House by fine or imprison
-